Mr. Bannon is on a collision course with Judge Judy. Following former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon’s “inflammatory” comments concerning Trump Jr and his participation in the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, which recently surfaced in a soon-to-be-published book, Trump’s personal lawyer sent a cease-and-desist order to the President’s newest pariah.
From what I’m gathering, a cease-and-desist order is more of a firm warning, a harbinger for more serious legal action if one doesn’t, well, desist. It also serves the Trump narrative of threatening legal action if the enemy doesn’t choose to slink back into obscurity. Trump’s legal team is also trying to get the book from even being published. Legal pursuits and capitalism obscure the schemes of a would-be dictatorship?
Sarah Sanders, official bugle for the Trump presidency, decided to make public her disgust with “Bannon’s attacks on his family.” I’m extremely in favor of Republican infighting, but this strange hypocrisy, even though it focuses on the architect of Trump’s personality, seems to attack reality and ignore appeals to consistency. Trump’s repetitious, libelous tweets have injured not just specific individuals, but have also inflamed political fault lines. In his gold-encrusted mind, does hypocrisy fall by the wayside because ever-shifting distinctions are created then tossed away?
Another aspect to consider is that the President’s pattern is using the courtroom to stir controversy. In the Mueller probe, he is the victim. The Muslim ban was halted by a “so-called” judge. If memory serves, his business career could be characterized in part by legal intimidation.
Is Trump emboldened now since Gorsuch is firmly rooted in the Supreme Court? Maybe he’s downright arrogant now, with all the far-right puppets inhabiting the lower courts. He was always over-confident, of course, but having a legal system propped up in your favor does incredible things for an already hugely inflated sense of self-worth.
This book would add more weight to an administration cracking under public scrutiny. I think we have to balance out the narrative. Rather than just see “Trump the Mighty” let’s focus on “Trump the Flailing.” The latter shouldn’t conjure up pity or complacency. The reason we should focus on perception should be pretty evident after last year’s events. Paint the image of a predatory, larger-than-life figure, then fear and anxiety might paralyze the political process. If you instead choose the portrait of an incompetent, pity-inspiring figure, then attention toward politics goes back to American default. Apathy, etc.
Trump was right about “Fire and Fury,” except now it’s coming from a former comrade.